The article studies the issues of the naming of God: is it possible to name God, how the name and the named are connected, does God have his own name, is the formula "the name of God is God" acceptable for the Christian worldview? The answers to these questions are given in the article using two methods, i.e. apophatic and antinomic. The objectives of the study are as follows. Firstly, to clarify the church's view on the phenomenon of the name of God; secondly, to compare the two ways of this clarifi cation, designated as apophatic and antinomic. The basis for understanding apophatic theology is the writings of the Corpus Areopagiticum, where apophatism can be regarded to be a condition of spiritual vision and mystical theology, as well an intellectual cognitive path. The principle of the non-mergence and inseparability of the name and the named are seen as the result of the apophatic approach in the article. This principle, applied by Russian religious philosophers to express the connection of God and His name, is found in works by Priest Pavel Florensky, but his philosophy is associated by researchers primarily with the antinomic method. The non-mergence and inseparability of the name and the named in the antinomic reading acquires the paradoxical character of two mutually excluding statements about the divinity and non-divinity of the name of God. As an antinomy are also regarded statements made at the same time and in the same relation, about the presence and absence of God's own name. Among the conclusions of the article is the theological acceptability of the statement that "the name of God is God".
